For those who have been following the development of the Cenocracy website with
its associated ideas, they will quickly note that comments used on other pages
combined with additional views, can take on a separate interest not related to
its former placement. As such, the discussion for the presented topic has so increased
to include attributive considerations that a single page had to be designated to it.
Specifically, the following was removed from the Banners page.

The following is an excellent article which gives definable weight to proposals being
addressed by the call for a Cenocracy with regards to the present Declaration. The
article details the oath used by law enforcement (and others such as the President),
as well as explicating the inter-laced role of the Independence Declaration to the
Constitution. Their obligation is to defend the right of the people to Alter or
Abolish (as well as Administrate) the government as the people see fit. They must
therefore honor this Right by standing down if called upon to intercede against
the people's efforts... though this does not inturn oblige the people to deliberately
conduct activities of wanton violence and destruction and define such acts as legal.
However, neither should such an oath be taken as a promise to blindly follow the
Will of a despot-thinking superior who places their own agendas ahead of the
rights of the public. The Cenocratic Declaration For Greater Independence highlights
a deeper meaning and significance of the Constitution-supporting Oath, its allegiance
to the Independence Declaration, and the right of the people concerning the establishment
of a Cenocracy (New Government).

However, while we may admire the implied and practiced traditions regarding the
Independence Declaration, Constitution and Oath(s) of office, we encounter problems
with such traditions and need to be addressed because they speak of hypocrisy. Nonetheless,
I do not wish to detract from the following article's wonderful instructive presentation
and will defer my comments till later.

Early in the morning, on their first full day at the FBI Academy, 50 new-agent
trainees, dressed in conservative suits and more than a little anxious about their
new careers, stand as instructed by the assistant director of the FBI and raise
their right hands. In unison, the trainees repeat the following words as they are
sworn in as employees of the federal government:

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well
and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God.

At the end of their academy training, and as part of the official graduation
ceremony, these same new-agent trainees once again will stand, raise their right
hands, and repeat the same oath. This time, however, the oath will be administered
by the director of the FBI, and the trainees will be sworn in as special agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.1 Similar
types of ceremonies are conducted in every state, by every law enforcement agency,
for every officer across the country. And, each officer promises to do one fundamentally
important thing—support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

All too often in our culture, we participate in ceremonies and follow instructions
without taking the time to contemplate and understand the meaning and significance
of our actions. This article attempts to shed some light on the purpose and history
of the oath and to further enhance our understanding of the Constitution that we as
law enforcement officers solemnly swear to uphold.

Origins of the Oath

The idea of taking an oath in support of a government, ruler, or cause was not
new to the founding fathers. The practice stems from ancient times and was common
in England and in the American colonies.

“During the American Revolution, General George Washington required all officers
to subscribe to an oath renouncing any allegiance to King George III and pledging
their fidelity to the United States.”2

When asked where the requirement that all law enforcement officers take an oath
to support and defend the Constitution comes from, some have speculated that it is
linked to the presidential oath found in the Constitution.3
They reason that because the president is the chief executive and law enforcement
officers are generally seen as members of the executive branch of government, the
requirement to take an oath is inferred from Article II of the Constitution. Others
assume that it comes from statutes enacted by Congress and the various state legislatures.
Most are surprised to learn that the requirement to take an oath is found in the
Constitution itself. Article VI mandates that both federal and state officers of all
three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) take an oath to
support the Constitution of the United States.

The Senators and Representatives […], and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United
States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support
this Constitution[…].4

...in our culture, we participate in ceremonies
and follow instructions without taking the time to contemplate and understand the
meaning and significance of our actions.”

*Special Agent Rudd is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.

Wording of the Oath

Unlike the presidential oath, the particular wording of this oath is not delineated
in the Constitution, merely the requirement that an oath be taken. As suspected,
the wording of the oath has been formulated by the federal and state legislatures.

The significance the founding generation placed on the requirement to take an
oath as mandated in Article VI is highlighted by the fact that the very first act
of the first Congress of the United States was to establish a simple 14-word oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United
States.”5

From the founding of our new government until the Civil War era, this simple
oath adequately served its intended purpose. However, in April 1861, in light of
the conflicts surrounding the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln demanded that
all federal, executive branch employees take an expanded oath in support of the
Union. Shortly thereafter, at an emergency session of Congress, legislation was
enacted requiring all employees to take the expanded oath. By the end of the year,
Congress had revised the expanded oath and added a new section, creating what came
to be known as the Ironclad Test Oath or Test Oath.6
“The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required ‘every person
elected or appointed to any office…under the Government of the United States…excepting
the President of the United States’ to swear or affirm that they had never previously
engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct.”7

As early as 1868, Congress created an alternative oath for individuals unable to
take the Test Oath “on account of their participation in the late rebellion.”
8 Nearly two decades later, Congress repealed
the Test Oath and mandated the federal oath of office we have today.
9 This oath, taken by most federal employees,
can be found in Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 3331.10

State officers, on the other hand, are required by federal statute to take the
original oath first promulgated in 1789.11
In addition to this requirement, state constitutions and legislatures have generally
added words and sentiments appropriate to their respective states. One obvious
addition is the dual requirement to support and defend not only the federal
Constitution but also the constitution and laws of the individual state.12

Meaning of the Oath

At the core of each of these oaths, whether the federal oath in its current form
or the various state oaths with their additional obligations, lies the simple language
put forth by our first Congress: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States.”

A brief analysis of these words and their meanings may help to solidify their
significance:

“I…”— an individual, person, citizen, one member of the whole, officer;

It is significant that we take an oath to support and
defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler,
office, or entity. This is true for the simple reason that the
Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound
government that provide balance, stability, and consistency
through time. A government based on individuals—who are
inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error—too easily
leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other.
The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create
a balanced government based on constitutional principles.

The American colonists were all too familiar with the
harmful effects of unbalanced government and oaths to
individual rulers. For example, the English were required to
swear loyalty to the crown, and many of the early colonial
documents commanded oaths of allegiance to the king.
14 The founding fathers saw
that such a system was detrimental to the continued liberties
of a free people. A study of both ancient and modern history
illustrates this point. One fairly recent example can be seen
in the oaths of Nazi Germany. On August 19, 1934, 90 percent
of Germany voted for Hitler to assume complete power. The very
next day, Hitler’s cabinet decreed the Law On the Allegiance
of Civil Servants and Soldiers of the Armed Forces. This law
abolished all former oaths and required that all soldiers and
public servants declare an oath of unquestioned obedience to
“Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of the German Reich and people.”
15 Although many of the
officers in Hitler’s regime came to realize the error of his
plans, they were reluctant to stop him because of the oath of
loyalty they had taken to the Fuhrer.
16

The founding fathers diligently sought to avoid the
mistakes of other nations and, for the first time in history,
form a balanced government where freedom could reign. To
appreciate this ideal, we first must acknowledge what some
have called the preface or architectural blueprint to the
Constitution—the Declaration of Independence.17
“While the Declaration of Independence, as promulgated on July
4, 1776, did not bring this nation into existence or establish
the government of the United States of America, it
magnificently enunciated the fundamental principles of
republican or constitutional government—principals that are
not stated explicitly in the Constitution itself.”18
The essence of these fundamental principles were memorialized
when Thomas Jefferson penned the famous words

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed….19

Once the colonists declared their independence from Great
Britain, they knew they needed a form of government that
would keep the 13 colonies united. However, many were
skeptical of creating a central government that would destroy
their independence as separate and sovereign states. The
result was the creation of the Articles of Confederation and
Perpetual Union, which lasted only seven years. This document
provided for a weak legislative body and no judicial or
executive branch.

Although some have referred to the Articles of
Confederation as America’s first constitution, it never was
given that status by the colonists. American colonists were
familiar with, and placed great emphasis on, the supremacy of
written constitutions. Immediately following the Declaration
of Independence, in addition to creating the Articles of
Confederation, 11 of the 13 colonies drafted and ratified
state constitutions. The inferiority of the Articles of
Confederation can be seen by the fact that “[m]ost of the new
state constitutions included elaborate oaths that tied
allegiance to and provided a summary of the basic
constitutional principles animating American
constitutionalism. There was no oath in the Articles of
Confederation.”20

The Articles of Confederation provided the Federal
Government with too little authority to maintain law, order
and equality among the new states. So America’s best minds
came together once again in Philadelphia, where they had
declared their independence from Britain 11 years before,
and hammered together a far better government for
themselves, creating a Constitution that has served
Americans well for more than 200 years now.21

The Constitution was not miraculously formulated by ideas
invented by the founding fathers during the Constitutional
Convention. To the contrary, in the years preceding the
“Miracle at Philadelphia,” Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Jay,
Alexander Hamilton, George Wythe, James Wilson, and others
made every effort to study and comprehend the nature and
politics of truly free government.
22 During the Revolutionary
War, John Adams wrote the following to his wife:

The science of government is my duty to study, more than
all other sciences; the arts of legislation and
administration and negotiation ought to take [the] place of,
indeed to exclude, in manner, all other arts. I must study
politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study
mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and
naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture,
in order to give their children the right to study painting,
poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain.
23

Based on these studies and the collective wisdom of these
men, the Constitution our founding fathers created was an
amazingly concise, yet comprehensive, document. Comprising a
mere seven articles, it embodies the fundamental principles of
popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and federalism,
allows for a process of amendment, and provides a system of
checks and balances. A closer look at these principles and how
they apply to law enforcement today may be instructive.

The Preamble and Popular
Sovereignty

It has been said that the Preamble sets forth the goals or
purposes of the Constitution.
24 When read from the
perspective of a law enforcement officer, the purposes
described therein could be seen as a mission statement for
today’s law enforcement community.

… in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity….

The opening and closing words of the Preamble—“We the
people of the United States […] do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America”—embrace the
idea of “popular sovereignty,” a government ordained and
established by the consent of the people. From the outset,
then, we see that this new government was to be different
from any government then in existence. It was not a monarchy
where the rule of one could easily lead to tyranny; it was
not an aristocracy where the rule of a privileged few could
descend into oligarchy, nor was it even to be a pure
democracy where mob rule could slip into anarchy.25
The American dream was to be founded on a constitutional
republic where elected representatives swear to uphold the
Constitution as they serve at the will and by the consent of
the people. This was something “[s]o rare that some historians
maintain it has been accomplished only three times during all
of human history: Old Testament Israel, the Golden Age of
Greece, and the era of emergence of the United States of
America.”26

Separation of Powers and Federalism

The structure of the Constitution itself emphasizes the
principle of separation of powers. Article I established the
legislative branch with the power to make laws; Article II,
the executive branch with the authority to enforce the laws;
and Article III, the judicial branch with jurisdiction over
legal disputes. “It is important to note that the
Constitution in no way granted the federal courts the power of
judicial review, or an ultimate interpretive power over the
constitutional issues. Modern federal courts possess this huge
power thanks to a long series of precedents beginning with the
1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.”
27 Under the doctrine of
separation of powers, each branch of government specializes in
its particular area of expertise with no one branch having
ultimate power over the whole.

Another aspect of the separation of powers, which is of
significance to law enforcement today, is the principle of
federalism. Federalism is a legal and political system where
the national or federal government shares power with the state
governments while each maintains some degree of
sovereignty.28 The
Constitution helps to delineate the roles of the federal
government by spelling out, to some degree, its limited
powers, which are outlined in the first three Articles.
Section 10 of Article I also places specific, limited
restrictions on the states; however, these restrictions
actually serve to emphasize the powers reserved exclusively
to the federal government (e.g., the power to make treaties
with other nations). Article IV delineates a few fundamental
requirements incumbent upon state governments, as well as
guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government.
Other than the limited guidance given to the states, the
Constitution does not direct the states on the establishment
and functions of state governments. The idea is that there are
certain limited activities the federal government is best
situated to handle; there are other activities that are best
left to the states; and still others best dealt with by
counties, cities, families, and individuals.

Under this system of government, the founding fathers
realized that conflicts between state and federal
jurisdiction would arise. Accordingly, in Article VI of the
Constitution, they designated the Constitution itself and
other federal laws as “the supreme Law of the Land.”
29 This clause (known as the
supremacy clause) serves as a “conflict-of-laws rule
specifying that certain national acts take priority over any
state acts that conflict with national law.”30

The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment

Although the federal government was intended to be a
government of limited powers, there were many who feared the
inevitable expansion of those powers, particularly in light of
the supremacy clause. Without the promise of a Bill of Rights
limiting the power of the federal government, the Constitution
never would have been ratified. Accordingly, “a total of 189
suggested amendments were submitted to [the first] Congress.
James Madison boiled these down to 17, but the Congress
approved only 12 of them.”
31 The states ended up
ratifying 10 as amendments to the Constitution, which became
known as the Bill of Rights.

Included within the Bill of Rights are a number of
provisions that have had a great impact on criminal law
enforcement. In particular, the First Amendment freedoms of
religion, speech, press, and assembly; the Fourth Amendment
restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures; the Fifth
Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination;
and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to counsel in
all criminal prosecutions. The Bill of Rights, however,
initially served only as a limitation on the federal
government and did not apply to the states. While states had
their own state constitutions with their own bills of rights,
individual state officers were not bound to provide the
protections afforded the people under the federal
Constitution. This changed, however, with the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, just three years after the end
of the Civil War.32

Over time, via the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process
clause, the Supreme Court has selectively incorporated most
of the provisions of the Bill of Rights and applied them to
the states, thereby unifying fundamental criminal procedure
law throughout the United States.

Today, every law enforcement academy in America provides
training in constitutional law, because virtually every
aspect of an officer’s job touches that area where the
authority of government and the liberty of the individual
meet. Arrests, searches and seizures, investigative
detentions, eyewitness identification, interrogations—all of
these everyday law enforcement tasks, and more, are governed
by the Federal Constitution. Under their own constitutions,
the States may provide greater protections to their people;
but by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the 14th
amendment, they cannot provide less.
33

Due, in part, to major paradigm shifts
regarding the rights and freedoms of individuals, which gained
momentum during the Civil War, the enactment of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of its due
process clause, and the many advances in the area of
technology, communication, and transportation, the federalism
that prevailed in the first half of our country’s existence is
very different from the federalism of today. “Since the New
Deal of the 1930s, more and more areas of American law,
government, and life have crossed an invisible line from state
responsibility into the federal domain.”
34 While some lament the
far-reaching power of today’s federal government, in the area
of law enforcement, most of these changes have been welcome,
particularly when they have allowed local, state, and federal
law enforcement agencies to pool their resources and fight
crime, which itself continues to defy jurisdictional boundaries.

Checks and Balances

Finally, the founding fathers built a system of checks and
balances into the Constitution, whereby the executive,
legislative, and judiciary would check and balance each other
and state governments would balance the federal while it, in
turn, would maintain a check on the states.35
When considering our system of checks and balances, obvious
examples surface, such as when the president (executive)
nominates judges to serve on the Supreme Court (judicial) with
the advice and consent of the Senate (legislative). However,
nowhere is the use and effect of checks and balances more
poignantly illustrated than in the everyday lives of today’s
law enforcement officers. For example, when officers determine
that they have enough probable cause to search a home or make
an arrest, barring special limited circumstances, they do not
execute the search or arrest of their own accord and based on
their singular authority as members of the executive branch.
To the contrary, they seek the review and approval of a
neutral and detached magistrate—a member of the judicial
branch. Even though they may not realize it, every time
officers prepare an affidavit and request approval of a
warrant, they are engaging in the process of checks and
balances so painstakingly advanced by our founding fathers
over two centuries ago.

While debates were raging among colonists over whether or
not to ratify the Constitution, which had recently been
adopted by the Constitutional Convention, the father of the
Constitution, James Madison, wrote the following insightful
words:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The
interest of the man must be connected with the
constitutional rights of the place…. If men were angels, no
government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls on government would
be necessary. In framing a government which is to be
administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in
this: you must first enable the government to control the
governed; and in the next place oblige it to control
itself.
36

The most fundamental of the many checks and balances in our
system of government is the power to control oneself. At no
time is a commitment to this principle more eloquently
expressed than when individual officers raise their hands and
solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States. May all of us do so with a firm understanding
of the principles we have determined to defend and a clear
recognition of the people we promise to protect.

Conclusion

We owe an incomparable debt of gratitude to the men and
women who fought to bring us the Constitution, and those who
have fought to preserve it to this day. In memory of the
federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who have
made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of this country,
may we read the words of President Lincoln anew and rededicate
our lives to the privilege of protecting and defending the
Constitution of the United States.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth
on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created
equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether
that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated,
can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that
war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a
final resting place for those who here gave their lives that
that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper
that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot
consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men,
living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far
above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can
never forget what they did here. It is for us the living,
rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which
they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great
task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we
take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave
the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom;
and that government of the people, by the people, for the
people shall not perish from the earth.
37

Endnotes

1 5 U.S.C. § 3331,
infra at endnote 10. See also 5 U.S.C. § 2905(a)
which leaves the decision of whether or not to renew the oath
due to a change in status to the discretion of the head of the
executive agency.2
Edwin Meese III et al. eds., 2005, The Heritage Guide to
the Constitution, Article VI, Oaths Clause by Matthew
Spalding, 294-295.3U.S. Const., art.
II, § 1, cl. 8, which states

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office,
he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the Office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.”

(For insight
regarding whether or not George Washington added the words
so help me God to the end of the oath of office he
took in 1789, see Forrester Church, So Help Me God: The
Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and
State, 2007, 445.).4U.S. Const., art.
VI, cl. 3.5United States Statutes at Large, Vol. I, Statute I,
Chapter I, §§ 1-5, June 1, 1789, which, in pertinent part
reads

STATUTE I. Chapter I.—An Act to regulate the Time
and Manner of administering certain Oaths.Sec. 1.
Be it enacted by the Senate and [House of]
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the oath or affirmation required by
the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States,
shall be administered in the form following, to wit: “I,
A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I
will support the Constitution of the United States.” […]
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the
members of the several State legislatures[…], and all
executive and judicial officers of the several States, who
have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or who shall be
chosen or appointed […] shall, before they proceed to
execute the duties of their respective offices, take the
foregoing oath or affirmation[…]. Sec. 4. And be it
further enacted, That all officers appointed, or
hereafter to be appointed under the authority of the United
States, shall, before they act in their respective offices,
take the same oath or
affirmation[…].

6Revised Statutes of the
United States: First Session of the 43rd Congress,
1873-74, Part I, 1st Edition, 1875, Title XIX, Section 1756,
which states the July 2, 1862, statute as follows:

Every person elected or appointed to any office
of honor or profit, either in the civil, military, or naval
service, excepting the President […], shall, before entering
upon the duties of such office, and before being entitled to
any part of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and
subscribe the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the
United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I
have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or
encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto;
that I have neither sought, nor accepted, nor attempted to
exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority,
or pretended authority, in hostility to the United States; that
I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government,
authority, power, or constitution within the United States,
hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm)
that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and
that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter, so help me
God.”

7
U.S. Senate: Oath of Office (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm).8Revised Statutes of the United States: First Session of
the 43rd Congress, 1873-74, Part I, 1st Edition, 1875,
Title XIX, Section 1757, which states the July 11, 1868,
statute as

Whenever any person who is not rendered
ineligible to office by the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution is elected or appointed to any
office of honor or trust under the Government of the United
States, and is not able, on account of his participation in
the late rebellion, to take the oath prescribed in the
preceding section, he shall, before entering upon the duties
of his office, take and subscribe in lieu of that oath the
following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to
enter. So help me God.”

An individual, except the President,
elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the
civil service or uniformed services, shall take the
following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take
this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to
enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other
oaths required by law.

11 4 U.S.C. § 101 (July 30,
1947), which states

Every member of a State legislature, and every
executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he
proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath
in the following form, to wit: “I, AB, do solemnly swear
that I will support the Constitution of the United
States.”

12 For example, see
Constitution of Kentucky §228 Oath of Officers […] as
ratified and revised 1891

Members of the General Assembly and all
officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties
of their respective offices […], shall take the following
oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the
case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the
United States, and the Constitution of this Commonwealth,
and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so
long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will
faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of
_____ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or
affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution,
I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel
with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor
have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with
deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a
challenge, nor aided or assisted a person thus offending, so
help me God.

13 The delegates to the first
Congress allowed for the word affirm to be used
instead of swear to appease those whose religious
beliefs forbid them from taking oaths. See Heritage
Guide, 295.14Heritage Guide, 294.15 William Shirer, The
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York, NY: Simon
& Schuster, 1990, 226-230.

Service oath for soldiers of the armed forces:
“I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render
unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Fuhrer of the
German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed
forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave
soldier, to give my life for this oath.”Service oath for
public servants: “I swear: I will be faithful and obedient
to Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, to
observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfill my official
duties, so help me God.”

16Id.17 Mortimer J. Adler, We
Hold These Truths: Understanding the Ideas and Ideals of the
Constitution, Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company
(1987).18Id. at 7.19The Declaration of
Independence (July 4, 1776).20Heritage Guide,
295.21The
Making of America: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a
Nation, by the Editors of Time, vi.22
W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and
Meaning of the Constitution, The National Center For
Constitutional Studies (1986), 41.23 W. Cleon Skousen, The
Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas That Changed the
World (1981, 2009), p. 146, quoting from Adrienne Koch,
ed., The American Enlightenment, George Braziller,
New York, 1965, 163.24 “The Preamble was placed
in the Constitution more or less as an afterthought. It was
not proposed or discussed on the floor of the Constitution.
Rather, Gouverneur Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania who as
a member of the Committee of Style actually drafted the
near-final text of the Constitution, composed it at the last
moment. It was Morris who gave the considered purposes of the
Constitution coherent shape, and the Preamble was the
capstone of his expository gift. The Preamble did not, in
itself, have any substantive legal meaning.” Heritage
Guide, 43.25
Referencing the teachings of the Greek Historian Polybius who
lived from 204 to 122 B.C. as quoted in Skousen, The Five
Thousand Year Leap, 142.26 Floyd G. Cullop, The
Constitution of the United States: An Introduction,
Mentor (1999), preface to the third edition. (The United
States is the oldest continuous government based on a written
constitution in the world.)27 Larry Schweikart and
Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States:
From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror,
Sentinel, Penguin Group (2004), 117.28 Lawrence M. Friedman,
American Law: An Introduction, Second Edition, W. W.
Norton & Company (1998), 146.29U.S. Const., art.
VI, cl. 2.30Heritage Guide, 291.31 Skousen, The Making of
America, 673.32 John C. Hall, “The
Constitution and Criminal Procedure,” FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, September 1986, 24-30.33Id. at
30.34 Friedman,
American Law, 160.35
Id. at 161.36 Charles R. Kesler ed.,
The Federalist Papers, No. 51: The Structure of the
Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances
Between the Different Departments (Madison).37The Gettysburg Address, by President Abraham Lincoln,
November 19, 1863.

Just as many people do not take the time to analyze an official oath they solemnly
swear (affirm) to, historians very often do not make inter-connections amongst different
documents which, when collated, can refer to the same context. In the present situation,
for example, in looking at the wording of the Independence Declaration, there is a
recognizable flaw in that it does not portray the words "All Men and Women" are created
equal. While such a perspective in writing may have been readily acceptable in the
past, the exclusion of Women in other contexts may not only be unrecognized, but
in some instances deliberately suppressed such as the Equal Rights Amendment...
and is a right all of us should be able to vote on as well as place it in the number
one position of a new Bill of Rights that needs to be written. Likewise, in the Presidential
Oath, the Constitution is mentioned, but not the people themselves. It is an oath
that should recognize that it is the people who represent the government, and it is
to them, the living participants the President should swear an allegiance to preserve,
protect and defend... not some document, which is of secondary value to flesh and
blood. We The People can always construct another document, but as individuals and
a collection thereof, we are unique in our time and place of history. The Presidential
Oath must be written just as the symbolism on currency must be updated to reflect
a progressive nation that is not bogged down by traditions creating dead-ends like
a dog chasing its own tail.

For example, there are problems with the aforementioned oath, with the Checks and
Balances formula, and with the Declaration of Independence. Let us look at the oath
first.

The Presidential Oath commentary was taken from the Cenocratic Preface page:

Here is the U.S. Presidential oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It is a particularly shallow oath. It's lack of depth evinces a superficial
appreciation and practice of a real OF, BY, and FOR the people democracy. It mentions
the Presidential office, the Constitution, and the United States. But it does not
explicitly mention the people. Whereas some might want to argue the people are
implied, this "implication" displaces the people into the position of an after-thought...
into some vague recollection. The people should not be an implication, they are
THE single most important element and should be respected by being named.
The Office of the President, the Constitution, and the United States belong to
the people, and not vice versa. They have a right to be personally acknowledged
as the true proprietors of the United States, the Constitution, and the Presidential
Office. The people are not a shadow, are not an echo, are not an entity which can
not be named because of some superstitious philosophy evincing a Fairy Tale like
Rumpelstiltskin and that some religious observance might ludicrously adopt as a
means of suggesting its own greatness because of. The people are not that which is
owned, but are in fact the owners who can and want to speak for themselves through
a Cenocratic Formula of governance. The oath of the highest office in the land is
that of an employee of the people and should, at the very least, recognize its boss
by publicly naming them. Hard working people deserve to be recognized as being of
primary importance and not be slighted by being nameless... like some shadowy
figure standing in the background so as not to detract from some assumed "chosen
one" intimation which distorts an underlying messianic or megalomaniac insinuation
of self-importance.

We The People have a name just as we have a voice and are fated to become fully
recognized as the preeminent governing Will guaranteed by a Cenocracy
(New Government). All governments will be forced to accept the people as a collective
identity with a viable passport to a better future. It is a Will that shall Tell
the Tale of a public's arrow shot true, as a Declaration for Greater Independence!
(Mentioned as a reference to William Tell who shot an arrow off of his Son's head
to voice his opinion against the directive of Authority.)

At present, the people do not have a Cenocratic means of Self-Representation...
it is forced to accept a vicarious form of Representation that often is out-of-touch
with the actual collective Will of the People and makes guesses based on spurious
polls and gut-felt assumptions.

It is a Will that is denied a full Citizenship,
denied Individuality, and denied and actual right to Vote on its own behalf, without
being subjected to some political machination of reigning authority.

In effect, the collective will of the people is denied its own personhood, its
own incorporation and its own stock-market designation as a standard of social
self-governance and not as an auxiliary component of infrequent permissibility.

The Presidential Oath describes a serious and pervasively practiced short-coming
that needs to be rectified. Instead of the Presidential Office being used to preserve,
protect and defend a Constitution, it should, for example, be stated thusly:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my Ability; preserve, protect and defend the people's right to have a
government which best befits their collective consciousness expressed in a collective
voice through a Referendum whose results can be mandated into a law as a
Constitutionized Representation of their desire for developing a better United
States in partnership with a global community.”

The Presidential Office, the Constitution and the United States are nothing
without the people. We need to not only begin thinking WAY outside our enclosed,
segregationist boxes of tradition, but begin a practice thereof by altering the
wording of oaths, pledges, and declarations to be reflected in our laws and social
practices. If the public is to grow up as an expressed governing self of maturity,
then the government should practice such a maturity as a preeminent role model.
Let it lead with the leadership of a true leader.

If grocery stores and other businesses can display a respectful acknowledgment
and humility towards senior citizens, handicapped persons and pregnant women by
providing particularlized parking spaces as an oath of a stated business practice;
at the very least the President of the United States can exhibit a respectful
acknowledgment of all the Nations' peoples by providing a particularlized comment
thereof and there-for... if for nothing else, than to thank the public for the
privilege of being able to serve it. Whereas the Person elected to the Presidency
is named a President, and those elected to Congress are at least referred to as
Members of Congress, the people are unduly slighted when they are not as such
individually acknowledged in the Oath taken by the President. In fact, all government
oaths should be provisioned with a recognition of the people. This is an oversight
that needs to be remedied.

For example, here is the Presidential oath refashioned to individually include
the people that, for the most part, uses the same formula but that may not raise
the eyebrows of some traditionalists, even though it will have a great impact on
the perception and practice of politics and governance:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the Citizens of the United States.”

While some may prefer to use the word "Citizens", the usage of the word "Peoples"
has merit, since many believe in the ways and means of the United States but are
as yet not a citizen. Whereas, we could use the phrase "Citizens and supportive
Peoples" as a useful concession to include both. In any respect, the oath must be
changed to effect a greater comprehension of the present reality and not continue
an expression of an antiquated mentality the people have grown out of.

And it should be fully noted that the protection and defense of the citizens
very much includes a Bill -of- Rights that was initially omitted from the U.S.
Constitution but were an essential inclusion in order to protect and defend the
people from arbitrary acts of the Federal government, and later adopted as a necessary
provision for the people against arbitrary acts of State governments. As presently
practiced, the U.S. Presidential oath places the Constitution and the people in
a secondary position, thus rendering a needed change as:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully preserve,
protect, as well as defend the Constitution and the Bill -of- Rights of the Citizens
of the United States... and will to the best of my Ability, execute the Office of
President of the United States on their behalf.”

Without an alteration in the Presidential Oath, the people remain a superficial
adjunct of consideration. Any lawyer who truly represents the people would not stand
for such a specious oath. The people can not expect the Supreme Court to protect
the Rights of the People when it is their job to protect the Rights of the Constitution...
and all its short comings... The Constitution, the Bill -of- Rights, and the Presidential
office mean nothing without the people. To not mention the People and their Rights
is to disavow their singular and collective importance.

A new Presidential oath is needed just like the people need a new government...
a Cenocracy. The future must not continue from its present footing or else more
disharmony will ensue as the population increases with little change in the standard
of Equality that ensures a more even redistribution and redefinition of all wealth
to enhance everyone's life.

Philosophically speaking, if we were to remove all the people of the United
States and replace them with Africans, Asians, or some other generalized but
selective group, it is rather questionable that the "New Americans" would retain
the three elements (Presidential Office, Constitution, United States) as we now
presently know them. Yes, they might well evolve into some greater practice of
democracy, or they could just as well change into using a form of governance more
in line with some past practice. The wording in documents would likely change, and
with them their meaning. However, the same could be true for any country.

For example, if all the people of Britain were replaced with Americans, would
the country retain its present laws or would they change because Americans collectively
espouse a different type of consciousness regardless of where they might be placed?
How about replacing all the Russian peoples with Japanese? Or Mexicans with Germans?
Or, stated rather comically, the people of Florida with Eskimos, the people of India
with Californians, the peoples of the Middle East with Icelanders, Americans with
the Peoples of the Middle East, the peoples of Hawaii with Danes, males with females
in all sports, etc... or the reverse thereof? Is the presumed "American", Japanese,
Russian, Icelandic, Middle Eastern, Italian, Mexican, etc., consciousness, like
all governing consciousnesses the world over in that they are mere rationalities
fashioned into a culture-specific conveyor belt system representing the prevailing
economics in use... without which the governing consciousness may diminish, divert
to something else, or die?

While one person or a small group might adopt and adapt to the prevailing laws
practiced in a given location, what if an entire people were replaced by those who
had practiced a different perspective? Is one's perspective dependent solely on
the place they inhabit, or can it be enlarged to accommodate concerns and considerations
of multiple places and peoples? If there is a Universality in that we are all a type
of species, does this entail a basic commonality of consciousness which can be used
to develop a Universal set of laws? With respect to the idea of a political consciousness
as described by the social governance adopted by a group-culture (in contrast to
one's individualized views not typically described as a "personalized culture"),
how is a change in governance to take place unless there is a change in the culture
without the use of a Revolution? Indeed, a change in governance is effected by a
cultural revolution which may occur by way of changes in technology, communication,
education standards, economics, etc..., whether good or bad for the people. And it
can also occur by someone in a political office engaged in nefarious activities
to effect conditions for ulterior motives. But such activities often require the
complicity of numerous like-minded individuals whose personal interests are valued
over and above the needs of the public. Yet, electing a single person to an office
does not typically alter anything substantially. One person has difficulty making
changes if there are not particular others who support them. Simply supporting a
single person for a given office of leadership, if the person is little more than
an office manager, (a keeper of the flame and not a path finder), is a waste of a
vote.

And in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, he omitted the word "All" when he said "Of
the people, By the people, For the people... though this word was included in the
original phrase used by the American preacher and abolitionist Theodore Parker
from which it came. The people have for much too long been ostracized and minimized
from their government. A Cenocracy will remedy these and other short-comings.

The present form of government is wholly inadequate for a true "peoples" government
when its practiced structure minimizes and often negates the
"Will of the People" from having a means of expressing its concerted
opinion without some vicarious, or otherwise substituted representation thereof.
Indeed, even when the U.S. Presidential oath is taken does the nation as a whole
little realize that the person elected is swearing to uphold a Constitution effected
by the "Will of the People" of past eras,
and not the Will established by those of us living in the present... because a
Congressionally mandated Referendum process involving a more effectual complaint
forum for discussion is discredited. Why, we must ask, is Authority so afraid of
the "Will of the People" of the present it will
do anything it can to wrest and manipulate control into the hands of a few who must
promote the continued illusion of so many social self-governing falsehoods?

The Checks and Balances formula built into the three Branches of Government
design, assumes that they will remain separate, but cohesive entities whose members
will adequately represent the People... which they do, in principle, but that in fact
do not Represent the Will of the People because such a Will is not publicly known
by way of an expressed tabulation. (In other words, the public is neither asked for
its collective opinion and that opinion is never deduced by a standardized voting
practice.) Just because we practice a political system in which people are elected
to offices titled with the label of "Representative", does not mean they actually
Represent the Collective Will. Because of this, the people have no real means of
protecting itself from a system of governance that can be abusive. The public needs
to have a means of self-protection by way of an established provision to fully
participate in the Checks and Balances formula. By having its own Representative
Legislative Branch to oversee a mandated Referendum practice, the Will of the People
can be better served.

The Declaration of Independence is another problem area because it displays
a practice of hypocrisy. When it states that "All men are created equal", and then
the subsequent practice was to exclude the majority of the people from being able
to vote (all women, Native Americans, blacks and non-property owning males), it is
clear that the word "equality" was based on an accepted view of discrimination.
Likewise, when it is stated that the people have a right to alter or abolish the
government but the government passes a law (USC 18 section 2385) which makes it
illegal to overthrow the government, we should denote that such a discernible
hypocrisy means that the frame of thinking held by the forefathers persists to
this day. The hypocrisy is magnified and made more acute by the fact that the
subsequent Constitution, deriving its authority from the Declaration, implies
that it too constitutes an hypocrisy... thus requiring multiple amendments that
the people themselves are unable to directly vote on. The absence of a Constitutionally
mandated provision for the people to have a secure practice of Collective Will
assertion buoyed by being a direct part of the Checks and Balances formula; attests
to the practice of a hypocritical Democracy.